Basically, the opening escalation of disciplinary measures we take for site-related infractions is counter-intuitive. We start with a revoke, which is considered Non-Disciplinary, and then escalate to a warning PM, which is considered Disciplinary. The problem, as Modern_Erasmus put it, is that a warning is just that - a warning - while a revocation is simultaneously a warning and a form of punishment (even if site staff usually don't consider it as such, it's technically a 24-hour ban from the site). Furthermore, this is the direct opposite of our Chat disciplinary escalation measures, which start at verbal warnings and then escalate to bans.

My proposal is simple: switch the two around. We start by sending warning PMs to users and log those as Non-Disciplinary, and then escalate to revoking memberships and logging those as Disciplinary. This makes our site and chat escalation processes more consistent, intuitive, and easier to remember.

If there's no significant disagreement after a week, I'll put up a vote. This discussion is open to Junior Staff, as it is simply a discussion thread and not a voting thread to implement.

I suggest that we start with disciplinary actions as disciplinary actions - i.e. there is no distinction between sending an official PM telling you to knock it off and a warning PM, and revocations should be logged like a softer ban. If we want to describe a user with non-disc we can move to staff posts, listing some shitposts, etc. with any significant staff action (Warning) be disciplinary.

My sentiment is this to a point- perhaps a softer PM would be in order for a non-disc action, something to let a user know that their actions are bringing them closer to disciplinary action or something like that. However I do agree with the rest of what Soul has said.

I feel like we could probably also attempt to talk to users about their behaviour if we're starting to collect things in a thread.

Communicating with people generally goes over better than a sudden "Here's a list of all the times you fucked up. Official warning: don't do any of those again."

Yes, I'm oversimplifying, but the simplest way to see it is how people are likely to see it. Most people don't care about the whole history behind a decision and that it's better than the last way etc etc.

TLDR we should probably notify people about their non-disc threads, see if we can't suggest ways they can do better.

This has been an issue for years. It's repeatedly been brought up, and staff stop doing it for a while, only to start again down the line. At this point, it's habit.

It's a systematic abuse of power, ignored only due to each individual act being a minor abuse of power on its own.

I can support this, but I would add a requirement that no user ever be revoked without a warning PM unless it's an actual emergency, AKA, they are currently and actively causing a problem for the site. (A user who posted three spammy posts in a row isn't an "emergency", even though I've seen things like that referred to as "emergencies" in the past.)

I'm good with DrMagnus's list. Revokes really do feel like more of an action against a user than an official warning, and I remember having to be reminded frequently in the past that revokes were non-disc. It makes more sense to have them happen after a warning, or in the event of an emergency where someone really needs to slow down.